I see the issues of Internet censorship, access rights, and content reuse as part of a much larger phenomenon that many people are unaware. Whereas the Internet has been a revolutionary force in humanity’s communication capabilities, facilitating numerous societal, cultural, political, and economic changes, I believe that it is the emerging evolutionary changes fueled by the accelerating growth in technology that will bring about the most radical and fundamental transformation.

Let me lead you through my thinking.

The Internet as a Right

Today I’ve seen this article by Vint Cerf posted twice to my Google Plus Stream, Internet Access Is Not a Human Right (independently posted by Tim O’Reilly and John Blossom). John Blossom’s post and ensuing comments present a well-reasoned argument on why access to the Internet should be considered a human right. Discussing the seminal insights in America’s First Amendment (freedom of speech, freedom of the press), John successfully argues that the right to unfettered Internet access is a natural extension of these two rights.

This issue was thrown into the spotlight in the middle of last year when the United Nations’ Human Rights Council declared that access to the InterWeb was a basic, global human right. Vint Cerf, on the other hand, makes his case in his article why he believes that is an improper viewpoint.

I agree with the UN’s declaration and respectfully disagree with Vint Cerf’s reasoning. To me, however, this debate misses a larger issue — the Internet is transforming in profound ways that push this discussion beyond the simple notion of access rights.

The Internet as a Cultural and Spiritual Resource

Also floating by in my Google Plus Stream this morning was this article (shared by Kingsley Idehen), about the Missionary Church of Kopimism being approved as an official religion in Sweden.

In my rehashing of Kingsley’s post, I mused about the possible ramifications the religion of Kopimism could have in the United States on the SOPA / PIPA legislative process. I asked if, “policy makers [could] be infringing on [freedom of religion] and the separation of church and state by trying to regulate the Internet and its activities.”

In the article about Kopimism, I found this statement very intriguing:

It makes perfect sense to observe that all life comes from copying and remixing of previous life, and to therefore hold copying and remixing as higher, sacred acts worthy of reverence…People who have observed that copying and remixing is the basis for all our being deserve every bit of respect for considering those acts connected with life itself.

(Note: Here is another article on this issue, A Few Thoughts on Kopimism as a Religion)

This is an interesting perspective. Of course biological life maintains and perpetuates itself via mitosis and meiosis. Our past cells and current self can only survive via the copying and passing on of genetic information. Evolution proceeds via the copying and mixing of various genes and through creation of novel genes thanks to mutations. Copying is also fundamental to disseminating and perpetuating software, content, knowledge, ideas, and cultural memes.

Thus copying can be viewed as something that transcends the myopic view of intellectual property protection and its strict enforcement of infringement laws. Censorship and a reduction of access rights to the Internet eschews the higher-level cultural and spiritual import of our social interactions on the InterWeb.

I suppose it could be argued that copying, remixing, sharing, and disseminating are at the core of the fabric of the universe. So how is the Internet moving past the basic issue of access rights and evolving into a more holistic manifestation of our biological and universal predilections to copy, share, disseminate and connect?

The Emerging Global Brain

As the growth of computing technology accelerates at an accelerating rate, the tools and means with which our species communicates will radically change. Already at least one billion people are emotionally connected and attached to their social media networks and obsessively enamored with their smart devices. At least a billion people more covet the notion of being connected in the same way.

For those of us intimately tied into the Social Web, our connection and devices might as well be a permanent piece of our neural anatomy. In my article, Who Should Own the Internet, I make this observation:

The Internet has become our global data ecosystem. It is an evolutionary force in the speciation of humanities’ communication and computation infrastructure. As a result of the ease with which data of all types flows around the global, and with the increasing connections made to this data on a daily basis, our species is on the verge of seismic and profound changes.

In just a few decades, the Internet has grown like a developing nervous system, transcending national boundaries, shrinking geographic distances, dissolving geopolitical barriers, and binding many of us together into a single, global network. If allowed to continue its course unshackled by shortsighted power players, then it may become humankind’s most powerful, liberating, unifying, and transformational force.

As our computing and communication technologies become smaller, more powerful, cheaper, and ubiquitous, humanity will begin to merge with these tools. Currently, we have superficially merged with our communication tools, but in a few decades, we will have augmented reality interfaces in our glasses and contact lenses, various Internet-enabled sensors in our bodies, and a copious amount of micro sensors providing reams of data from the Web of Sensors—a global mesh network of sensors.

At some point, the Global Brain will come to life. It will be part organic, part inorganic. It will be part us and part our creations. It will be a universal communications binding whose existence is greater than the sum of its parts.

(Note: I go into more detail about the Global Brain in my thought piece, Cybernetics, the Social Web, and the (Coming?) Singularity)

Because of this belief, in my Who Should Own the Internet article, I put forth my view of the needs of the Internet as follows:

…the Internet [should be] granted its own rights and freedoms—freedoms to grow, to prosper, to evolve unencumbered by corporate or governmental red tape as if it were its own emerging metaphysical entity.

In the coming decades, humanity’s sojourns and journeys across the Social Web will transform as the technological and cultural seismic shift in global communication patterns and infrastructure brings use closer together and intimately connects us. The Internet is evolving in ways that may be currently hard to comprehend. If the global netizenry does not stand up for its rights and those of an unencumbered Internet, them corporate greed, myopic political leaders, and misplaced fear will prevent humanity from achieving an amazing future.

As I began to compose a response to Nova’s query, it soon became clear that I had too much to say for a blog comment and decided that it was more fitting to write an article for my own site and then simply point Nova to it.

The Rights of the Internet and of its Users

If I were to attend the e-G8 Forum, what is the one big question that I think needs to be answered? Simple. Who owns the Internet?

If I were to attend the e-G8 Forum, what big issues would I push? Simple. I would stress two things: Global Internet democracy and Internet user rights.

What do I mean by global Internet democracy?

I’m not talking about a political movement to ensure that all peoples of the world are granted freedoms that those of use who are fortunate to live in real democracies experience—although that is of course vital to our survival as a species. Instead, I’m talking about the Internet being granted its own rights and freedoms—freedoms to grow, to prosper, to evolve unencumbered by corporate or governmental red tape as if it were its own emerging metaphysical entity.

The Internet has become our global data ecosystem. It is an evolutionary force in the speciation of humanities’ communication and computation infrastructure. As a result of the ease with which data of all types flows around the global, and with the increasing connections made to this data on a daily basis, our species is on the verge of seismic and profound changes.

In just a few decades, the Internet has grown like a developing nervous system, transcending national boundaries, shrinking geographic distances, dissolving geopolitical barriers, and binding many of us together into a single, global network. If allowed to continue its course unshackled by shortsighted power players, then it may become humankind’s most powerful, liberating, unifying, and transformational force.

What do I mean by Internet user rights?

With the recent net neutrality setbacks, discussions of the United States creating its own Internet kill switch, and the Commerce Department’s National ID initiative, informed netizens are right to be concerned about the future of their Internet freedoms.

In a free society, we should strive toward letting individuals, not governments or corporations, be in control of their personal data—an issue made painfully clear by the lack of real data portability among the Web-2.0-styled closed social nightclubs. We should advocate for the Internet rights of user-centric identity control, data ownership, and net equality for our data packets. These should be considered sacrosanct rights for all the Earth’s netizens.

There are a few promising projects in the works that address these issues. For example, the Freedom Box Project is working to create small, cheap, open-sourced personal servers that will return “power to the users over their networks and machines, returning the Internet to its intended peer-to-peer architecture”; the Diaspora Project offers users a distributed version of a Facebook-like social network; and the WebID protocol is creating an open distributed identity standard. These projects, and others in this space, need to be nurtured and given the liberty to proceed without regulation.

Collective and Connective Intelligence versus Myopic Dissonance

In my article, The HyperWeb: it’s All About Connections, I make an important point about the dangerous possibility that the Internet’s full potential might be purposely curtailed as a result of the myopic desires of a few power players:

Just like natural speciation, the continued evolution of the HyperWeb is not guaranteed. As with all evolutionary processes, advancements (innovations) may stop at a certain point.

The Web is a democratizing force that can help redistribute wealth and power. That is antithetical to most large companies interests—and a number of countries as well. Apple, Twitter, Facebook–and of course the phone and cable companies–want as much control as possible. They are fighting for control of the Web, not for the health of the Web.

It’s possible that for political, societal, or economic reasons–or some combination thereof–that the HyperWeb’s evolution may be curtailed. For instance, due to myopic business leaders, scared political leaders, or an uneducated, apathetic citizenry, humanity’s journey on the HyperWeb may not progress past Web 2.0 or Web 3.0.

The emergence of a truly Social Web will require not only policies that guarantee and protect the Internet’s freedom to grow, but also an informed netizenry that fights for its rights and freedoms. To date, neither of these prerequisites have been met.

The key message to communicate to the G8 leaders is that the world is struggling to become a global community and that a healthy, unfettered Internet may be our best insurance policy toward bringing that vision to fruition.

It is crucial that governments and corporations establish programs and invest in infrastructure that enable and ensure distributed services from identity, to micropayments, to unfettered mesh networks. It is critical that governments propose policies and enact laws that ensure user-centric ownership and control of personally-created and contributed data.

Let the people’s voices and data be freely heard and transmitted across the Internet. Let no one nation or corporation put up barriers to the Internet’s evolution no matter what the consequences may be to outdated notions of sovereignty.

Who should own the Internet? No corporation, no government, no organization, no individual. Instead, like the Earth, it should own itself.

My Related Articles

1. How the Death of Net Neutrality Effects You
2. Goodbye Google Old Friend: It’s time for the Open-Source Internet
3. Thinking Outside the Privacy Box
4. Regaining Control of Privacy and Identity: It’s up to Each Individual

It is important to state up front that there are many wonderful, helpful, supportive, knowledgeable, community-minded members in the greater WordPress community. If you are an active participant within this community, you already understand that fact.

Of course, a great community of supportive, fun-loving people does not guarantee that you will face few challenges with your WordPress or BuddyPress projects—whether that is starting and running a community, designing themes, or developing plugins.

This is the story about the challenges I have faced in bringing BP Privacy to fruition. It is just one developer’s journey and, as such, should not be construed as anything more than my perspective.

I hope that those who manage to read through this entire, long article walk away with not only a better understanding of some of the difficulties BP Privacy has faced, but also a feel for how they might want to approach taking on similar open source projects in the future.

Genesis of the Idea

In the beginning, there was an idea that BuddyPress needed privacy. Well, that idea was not present at the genesis of BuddyPress as it does not offer core privacy, but the idea was hatched in the early pre-RC2 release days of the BuddyPress project by two very active community leaders—one of whom was me.

At the inception of this project, BP Privacy had two developers. That’s right. I had a project partner. This partner was a key BuddyPress member and very interested in coding his first BP plugin. We teamed up on this project as we realized the complexity of the task at hand and that it would be beneficial to have a project partner.

We had a number of discussions about how we should tackle this project. I set up a subversion repository on my dedicated server for the project and gave him access. I started the long, tedious process of learning, really understanding, the inner workings of BuddyPress. After all, BP Privacy would not be a typical plugin. It had to interact with all the core BuddyPress components. It had to monitor and take control of output based on an individual’s desires. We both realized that BP Privacy was going to be a major, foundational component in its own right—even though it would be a third-party plugin.

However, as weeks passed into months, my project partner’s schedule did not allow him to participate. So, I told him that I was just going to get started and that he could join in at any time.

So that is the humble, less than exciting beginning of BP Privacy. It started with a two-person project team but ended up becoming a solo effort.

BP Privacy Timeline

On the BP Privacy site, I state in a blog post that this journey has been 16-months long. Of course, that was posted basically October 1, 2010. So as of the date on this post, the process is nearing 20 months. The reality, however, is that this project had its inception even earlier, almost two years ago.

Here is a blow-by-blow timetable for BP Privacy and some of the key factors and issues at each point along the way:

Project idea inception: Early April 2009. My project partner and I began discussing BP Privacy (what was at that time called BPAz or BP-Authz)

First code written: June 23, 2009. This was two months after hatching the concept. It was the point when my project partner determined his schedule would not allow him to participate. So, I started coding the project on my own.

First public beta release: December 5, 2009. Only four months and two weeks after the first code block was written, I released a very solid public beta version to the community. Note that before that public beta release, there was a small, select group of private alpha testers.

This was a very solid beta version with only a few minor bugs. It worked perfectly with BuddyPress v1.1.3, offering privacy filtering for four of BuddyPress’ then core components. But the rug was about to be pulled out from underneath the project.

Codebase and platform concerns arise: January 2, 2010. As BuddyPress 1.2 was fast approaching release, it became clear that a major BP Privacy code refactoring would be required. A good portion of the previous 4 months of work would need to be reevaluated and much rewritten. As I looked at the time commitment involved, I realized I needed to try a new approach.

Not surprisingly, this approach failed. It only raised about $175 dollars. Without a big financial boost to help me focus on BP Privacy, I had to turn my attention elsewhere for awhile.

Late spring through early fall of 2010: The BuddyPress project experienced critical uncertainties in my opinion. These uncertainties made me question its long-term health. During this time, the development of BP Privacy progressively slowed down, practically grinding to a halt in late summer of 2010 as I awaited a few, final core patches I had submitted months before to be accepted.

Due to these factors, nine months passed with very little development time being invested.

Announcement of Public Release (v1.0): September 30, 2010. I was privy to some promising developments in the world of BuddyPress that gave me hope that BuddyPress might actually weather the storm. So, after almost nine months of greatly reduced activity on my part, I went out on a limb, venturing back into the BP Privacy project on a more serious level once again.

I created the BP Privacy site and made an announcement on that new site that BP Privacy would be released on November 8, 2010. This is the first officially-advertised date given for the release of the public, production-ready version (v1.0).

A few weeks later came the news for which I had been waiting. The BuddyPress community had a shot of adrenaline and renewed hope. We welcomed the announcement that Paul Gibbs and Boone Gorges had been “promoted” to core committers.

Of course, November 8, 2010 came and went. I continued working on BP Privacy as time permitted as I patiently awaited the release of BuddyPress 1.2.7 which was finally released on December 22, 2010.

BP Privacy’s Future: See the end of this article.

Time Invested and Anticipated Returns

Projects of the magnitude of BP Privacy require a considerable time commitment. Whereas it is difficult to be absolutely precise, I have a pretty accurate estimate as to the number of hours I’ve invested in BP Privacy. My total time spent to date working on BP Privacy is 1450 hours.

What kinds of activities go into a project that would require such a time commitment? A great number of essential activities such as: emails, forum and IRC discussions, support of alpha and beta1 testers, writing and submitting core patches required to bring privacy services to BuddyPress, debating a number of these patches, studying and thoroughly understanding the inner workings of BP, keeping up to date with codebase changes in BP Trac, writing tools that were necessary in figuring out some unexpected behaviors with BuddyPress’ action and filter hooks, continuous and exhaustive testing of BP Privacy, and writing detailed documentation. Of course, all of this is on top of the actual coding of the component itself which has required (so far) two major refactorings of the codebase.

What will I earn for all of this effort? Zero. Okay, I had a total of about $225 in donations to help support development ($175 as mentioned above plus $50 received before that post). I am very grateful to all who donated, to my select testers, and to everyone who offered support in other ways.

This means that I will have earned just shy of 16 cents per hour working on BP Privacy. So, the next time you question the commitment and contribution of those who actively volunteer in the open source world, remember that number. Of course, if all the additional hours of time that I’ve donated on the BP support forums, IRC, via email, Twitter, and Skype are included, that total would undoubtably be about half of that.

Financially, I would have been better off spending that time working at McDonalds. It is ironic that the vast majority of people who will benefit from my work will not even contribute enough for me to buy a Big Mac. By the way, I do not eat at McDonalds so please don’t send coupons. In fact, I am not interested in any more donations.

Why do I have a section emphasizing the monetary aspects of BP Privacy? Because like the vast majority of people, I need to pay bills, put food on my family’s table, and save for the future. How many of you can donate 1450 hours of time creating free products or services for others to use?

I am a vocal advocate of the open source model, as anyone who reads my blog and tweets would know. I have volunteered a thousand hours plus of my time answering questions on the BuddyPress community support forums, via email, in IRC, on the phone, and via Skype. None of those hours are included in my total time spent on BP Privacy. Like many active members of the community, I give in more ways than just creating plugins.

The reality for me is that this community and its open source model does not make it possible to earn even a small part of my living in a way that I prefer—coding great-quality GPLed plugins that provide needed services to others.

As I do not take on client work–I’ve discussed this fact with people many times before–I need another means with which to recoup some of the time I have invested in coding open source software for the community. If you really want to learn more about this point, please read this post about this issue from my perspective—and read the comments for a fascinating discussion.

Lessons Learned

Here are a few lessons learned that may help other WordPress and BuddyPress developers have a better experience with offering GPLed software to the greater community.

Work on Projects that Give You Energy, Not Sap Your Strength: By and large, I have lost more energy working on the BP Privacy project than I have gained. It has been exceedingly frustrating at times. To be honest, if this were not something desperately needed for the BuddyPress platform, I would have dropped this project a year ago.

At the time I started coding BP Privacy, I was planning on using BuddyPress as the foundation of my startup, and privacy was key to that vision. So it made sense to continue BP Privacy and then release the component to the greater community once it was ready. Had I any idea how vocal the negative minority would be as they impatiently waited for me to provide them with high-quality, free-as-in-cost software, I would have canned the community release a long time ago and just worked on it for my private use.

The Vocal, Negative Minority: It is important to realize that more likely than not, the vast majority of users will be happy about your work, or at least indifferent. Unfortunately, human nature makes us more vocal when we’re displeased than when we are pleased. It is a minority of users that will be anywhere from disappointed to obsessively outraged. It will be this minority that will be most vocal. If you release your work to the community, expect to have a greater volume of “I hate you” than “I love you” feedback from your user base.

Whereas community members may appreciate your volunteer help on various support forums, and paying clients may love you, when it comes to freely-contributed plugins, don’t expect the same rosy reception.

Don’t Expect Donations: Based on the vast majority of all plugin developers’ experience, ninety-nine percent (and realistically more) of all users will never donate to your efforts. There are many plugin developers who have written about this. Here are just a few articles to shed some light on this issue. Again, read the comments to get a more balanced perspective on this issue as there are good points on both sides:

• Have you made a donation to your WordPress Plugin Developer?
• Do we do enough to support WordPress Plugin Developers?
• Open Source Motivations

The donation model is not broken, for the vast majority of creators, it never worked to begin with. I have tried many tactics to increase donation conversions. My plugins and appropriate blog posts all had obvious donate badges. But that has not made a difference. Donating to something that is freely available apparently also goes against human nature.

Plugin support: Unless you clearly and explicitly state that there will be zero support offered for your plugin (at a minimum that should be communicated in the readme.txt file) then it is your moral obligation to offer some level of support if you release a plugin to the community—which includes forking an existing plugin.

Therefore, expect there to be questions that must be answered, that user issues will take away time from your other projects, and possibly impact your paid work and family obligations. There will be users who claim they are having a problem with your plugin when in actuality it will be caused by something other than your plugin. No matter how hard you try to communicate that it is not an issue with your plugin, in these people’s minds, you will still be the party at “fault”.

It is for this reason that some plugin developers fully exercise their GPL rights. Please note that if you plan to charge for support, you should be aware of a potential issue.

Since all WordPress plugins and themes need to be licensed under then same GPL version as WordPress itself–GPL version 2–you do not technically have the freedom or right to charge support fees. That explicit freedom and right was added later in GPL version 3. (Compare the last paragraph of Section 1 of GPL version 2 to the last paragraph of Section 4 of GPL version 3).

Therefore, if you are planning on charging for support, you are operating outside the freedoms of the GPL version 2. You would be wise to seek legal counsel.

Disclaimer: You should seek legal counsel if you have questions or concerns about your freedoms and rights under the GPL. I am not a lawyer and the information presented is my opinion only.

With Plugin Popularity Comes Possible Trouble: I do not envy plugin developers with high download counts. I know that that means one of two things: they are at the first stage of the plugin’s support lifecycle where they are spending an inordinate amount of their time supporting the plugin (probably for free), or they will soon be entering the final stage of the plugin’s support lifecycle where they discontinue support and future development as their time commitment to the project cannot be sustained.

It is for these two reasons that I always donate to plugin developers whose software I use and only use plugins that I am sufficiently interested in as I expect that one day I will have to maintain them myself.

Plugin development should not be a popularity contest, he or she who has the highest plugin download count often does not win. Do not release a plugin for praise and glory. That rarely happens. What really happens is the more popular your plugin becomes, the greater the potential for you to lose control over your time. This can lead to a rather unpleasant, overall experience with your project.

Alpha & Beta testing: If you have limited time to work on your project, then it is best to make the alpha and maybe first beta version private releases. Provide copies only to those people who you believe will genuinely test it and provide you with useful feedback. It is better to have a small, focused group of testers than a horde of quasi-interested and knowledgeable testers.

The exception to this lesson would be if you have a team of developers who can share the responsibilities of managing a public alpha and beta test. But, if you are a solo developer, you could be in for a world of hurt if you set your pre-release software free for any and all to test.

Bugs will continue to be found even after you’ve released the first public version. You have to go no farther than WordPress or BuddyPress Trac to see how many bugs still exist in those stable, public products. That is the nature of all software. No matter how mature a software product, there will always be bugs, some of them serious.

Develop on a Developer-stable Version: Although BuddyPress v1.0 was the first official public release deemed suitable for general use, it was far from stable from a developer’s standpoint. This is evidenced by the fact that significant changes occurred between BP 1.0 and BP 1.1 that caused developers some grief and then even greater changes occurred between BP 1.1 and BP 1.2.

In my opinion, BP 1.2 should have been then first public release. In other words, BP 1.2 is really v1.0 in my mind. Now, with BP 1.3 close at hand, I’m concerned that developers (and possibly even users) will be faced with difficult upgrade challenges. Although, Paul, Boone, and John have been working hard to make the transition to BP 1.3 as painless as possible. So, perhaps my concerns are not valid. Whatever the reality, when the dust settles, BP 1.3 will become the first developer-stable version in my opinion.

Group or Solo effort: As should be obvious from the start of this article, you need to carefully vet your project partners. Although I had little data with which to make an honest assessment of my project partner’s suitability–the BuddyPress community was very new at the time–I nevertheless made a mistake at the start of this project. I should have quietly started by myself and only asked for interested project partners once I had some code to share and knew more about the skill sets of the various BP developers with whom I associated.

Communicate Less, Not More: This may come across as a hypocritical suggestion in light of some of the communication issues BuddyPress had last year. However, you need to differentiate BuddyPress as a developer platform and community from that of developing a BP plugin. With the former, the community is what makes the project a success. With the later, only a few key people need to be kept apprised. Communication is essential to the former, whereas to the latter it is not necessary until the plugin is released.

When it comes to plugin development, it is better to surprise the community with a new release (especially the initial release) than it is to build up their expectations. Although there is a thrill with getting validation for your efforts at the start of a project, there is no way to know what challenges lie ahead and how difficult the task may be. Interest and attention in any project can quickly turn negative if there are seemingly few results to share. Blame will always go to you, whether the issues holding up your project are beyond your control or not. This is especially true for a project that is deemed very important or possibly even vital—such as BP Privacy.

Once a plugin is released to the world, then proactive communication and vigilant project management are crucial to the project’s continued success. But before the public release, communicating less might actually help the project succeed as you won’t be distracted by the negative vocal minority.

Promised Release Dates: As a follow up to the point above, it is best to never put a date on a release. You are working on a plugin, not the core foundation of WordPress or BuddyPress where it makes sense to have project deadlines and development freeze dates.

If you do communicate a release date, do not be overly concerned if you fail to meet it. You are generously working on GPLed software that will more than likely earn you little if any for your efforts invested. You are not beholden to anyone.

Even the BuddyPress project has difficulties meeting its promised release dates. As this article can witness, there are many factors that contribute to a missed release date. Some are beyond your control. From a community standpoint, it is best if people remain patient and remember that they are getting GPLed software that provides them many freedoms of use. The software will be released when its released.

Use of the WordPress Plugin Repository: The WP Plugin Repo is a great service to developers and the greater community. You should use this service if you are planning not to exercise your full GPL rights. However, do not use the Repo for releasing alpha, beta, or RC versions. Most users will have no clue what an alpha or beta version truly means. More importantly, most will not care. If it’s on the Repo they’ll expect it to work. You should make your plugins available on the Repo only when they are ready for full public release. Until then, use another service, or your own server, to make pre-release versions available to those whom you wish to have access.

When Will BP Privacy Be Released?

Over the past two months, I have been reassessing my role in this project. As you have found out from the above history, my time commitment and investment into this project have been substantial. I’ve decided that the time required to support and maintain this project, and the energy required to do it properly, is incompatible with me earning a semblance of a living. It has also taken too much focus away from my current startup.

This project started out as a team effort but unfortunately became a solo effort. I believe that this project needs to become a team effort again—as in a team of developers, not a team of testers.

To be clear, BP Privacy was never intended to be a core BuddyPress component—even though some of you think that was the case. I am not and have never been part of BuddyPress’ core development team. I was simply an active community volunteer, support forum moderator, and plugin developer.

As most of you know, I am a staunch privacy advocate. Since my first days with the BuddyPress project, I have believed that privacy was a necessary core feature. That has yet to be realized. Perhaps part of the BP Privacy codebase can serve that purpose in the future. Although it might make more sense to refactor BuddyPress, offering true core privacy as a component.

What does this all mean?

I will be releasing the fully-functioning BP Privacy codebase over the next several days, along with a very extensive manual (35+ pages). At that point, I will end my official involvement with the project, and as such, I will not be providing any support.

The project will be in the hands of the community. It will be available for anyone to use as is, expand upon, fork, or even merge into BuddyPress core. Perhaps a group of developers will adopt BP Privacy and maintain it as a community-based project.

Because of my decision to end my official involvement with the project, I’ve decide to back tag the version I’ll be releasing, making it a release candidate instead of a public, ready-for-production version. Therefore, it will be v1.0-RC1 instead of V1.0. It also means that I will not be placing it on the WordPress Plugin Repository per the reasons I mentioned at the end of the last section. It will be available for a short while on the BP Privacy site before that site is taken down. The link will go to some yet-to-be-determined public repository. I will also be placing the link within a BP support forum thread.

By the way, for any group of developers interested, I have registered the bp-privacy distribution name with the WP Repo. I would be more than willing to assign that over to another group, if that is possible, or at the bare minimum add other committers. But be advised that I will not be participating in the project anymore.

Once BP Privacy v1.0-RC1 is out, it will be up to each person to fully evaluate the plugin and decide for themselves whether or not to run it on a production site. Although in my exhaustive testing BP Privacy works very will under WP 3.0.4 and BP 1.2.7, you must decide for yourself the viability of its use in a production environment. Thus, please be advised, no matter what you do, you are on your own until (and if) a new group of developers takes the reigns of BP Privacy and assumes support and maintenance responsibilities.

As far as the upcoming release of BP 1.3, I have not fully tested the most recent BP trunk version in Trac. Therefore, I cannot say how much refactoring may be required. I may put some effort into that, but do not wait for me. You should take the initiative and bring it up to date on your own volition.

As far as the few people that have pre-purchased BuddyPress Privacy Support Plans, I will be refunding all the monies received over the next week. But first I will focus on getting BP Privacy out the door. I will also be refunding my two, wonderful advertising partners. Yes, your ads have been up on BP Privacy going on three months (I have only charged them for the first month), but you have not received the type of exposure that you had expected. It is only fair that you get full refunds as well.

I hope that BP Privacy finds a useful life going forward!

Whereas Facebook, Twitter, FourSquare, and other ventures are social platforms, they are not the Web. These entities are only part of the Web—although it’s looking more and more “like” Facebook wants you to think that the Web equals Facebook.

The Web is currently not social. The social-media-driven Web is the metaspace analogy of meatspace nightclubs.

Each of these internally-focused social networks might have a globally-distributed data center, but all the activity occurs within the walls of their private social clubs. The activity in one social club is predominately isolated from the others. The activity does not freely spread throughout the Web. The conversations do not flow throughout the Web. They flow within each proprietary network with a very limited trickle of “conversation” allowed to the outside Web. Of course, this trickle is allowed out to encourage more people to come in to their closed clubs.

There is a monumental difference between social networking occurring on the Web and the Web being Social. Social creatures frequenting social networks does not make the Web inherently social. Why is this the case?

In my article, A Flock of Twitters: Decentralized Semantic Microblogging, I state:

With their closely-guarded data silos, social networks are not full participants in the Web, they are not participants in the interconnected data ecosystem. So, unlike an ecological web (think of a food web), the Web-based Internet is not as much of an intact web as it is a land of social network islands that punctuate an ocean of truly connected websites.

The Social Web, on the other hand, is a fully functioning and healthy ecosystem were all data are globally connected.

There is no disputing the fact that social is a big part of the current Web. Web 2.0 is the realm of social media, but it is also the web of exclusive, social clubs. Web 2.0 is about companies “doing” social media via cloistered social islands (called “networks”) more than it is about making the Web itself a social space.

The Web is currently not social. It’s the metaspace analogy of meatspace nightclubs. It’s filled with private social silos, which are antithetical to the Web’s vision. Each private social island is an internal network consisting of tightly-controlled infrastructure that offers its own vision of how humans should connect and interact.

Web-2.0-style closed social nightclubs are not the epitome of the Social Web. Their existence is a indication of how much further the Web has to go before it will become a Social space.

Metaville: a Non-social City of Social Stadiums

To better understand some of the points presented above, let’s look at the fictitious city of Metaville. In this analogy, the city of Metaville represents the current state of the not-social Web.

Metaville is a city with millions of residents. From the outside, it might look like a regular, American city. People regularly gather in a number of the city’s stadiums. In those stadiums, they socialize, sharing stories, pictures, minutiae of their daily lives.

The owners of each stadium are furiously growing the size of their stadium to make room for more people to join the conversations occurring inside of their stadium. Membership is often free but the two requirements are that the vast majority of your conversation must remain inside the walled colosseum and that you have little control over what the stadium owners do with your conversations.

There are a few upstart, niche arenas struggling to grab people’s attention, but even these smaller gathering spaces mimic the rules of the big stadiums.

Is the city of Metaville social? Well, there are pockets of social activity spread throughout the city but all of that activity occurs in stadiums with each stadium primarily isolated from the others.

Learn more about the differences between the Social Web Versus Social Networks

It is true that social activity occurs within Metaville. But when people leave one stadium and go to work, to home, or even to a different stadium (some of the residents of Metaville are members of more than one stadium), they leave their friends and conversations behind. Yes, sometimes they will check back in with their friends in a given stadium and sometimes they’ll get a ping from a friend within a stadium, but they don’t take their friends and conversations out of the stadiums. When they join a new stadium, they have to assemble a new set of friends, start a new conversation history.

Conversations do not happen in the streets of Metaville, or at cozy little cafes and diners. Conversations do not happen between a resident currently in his house with another resident currently in her condo. Practically all of the conversations occur within the exclusive domain of the stadiums. Sure, a resident at home can chat with one currently located in a private stadium, but the totality of that conversation is made possible by the propriety infrastructure that each stadium offers its members—and even then the conversation still takes place within the stadium’s system.

So the city of Metaville is actually not social. It is a place that has many stadiums within whose walls friends gather and conversations occur. But when a person leaves the stadium, their friends do not and cannot follow them. When a member leaves a stadium, a security guard inspects their belongings to make sure that very little is removed from the stadium.

In the realworld, in our meatspace, this is not the way life works. Our friends can come with us and even join us outside of the stadiums. Our friends can come over to our house, or we can chat with them in cafes, or on the streets, or in parks. We are not prevented from being social where ever we go.

Metaville is the model of the current Web. It has some very large pockets of social activity but the conversations and friendships do not readily travel outside of the stadiums.

This metaphor could be expanded further. Instead of Metaville being populated with a bunch of closed stadiums, it could be Metastate populated with closed cities whose citizens rarely leave to visit other cities, or Metacountry whose closed states have tight boarder-crossing restrictions, or Metaworld with closed countries tightly controlling and limiting the flow of information from its citizens into neighboring countries.

When you look at life in Metaville, you will see that the current Web is no more social than one stadium full of people, that the cafes and diners of the Web are ghost towns, that the stadiums of Metaville are more like dictatorial countries.

But All is Not Dark in the Streets of Metaville

There are a few glimmers of light shinning through the streets of Metaville, a few efforts that are counter to the Web-2.0-styled stadium construction. These efforts are focused on helping to create a truly Social Web, at allowing conversation to happen in the cafes and diners of Metaville, and allowing users to take their conversations and friends with them no matter to what unchartered locations of the city they may wish to travel.

Companies like Status.net, the startup Diaspora, and the research project SMOB all are diligently working at bringing federated services to the Web. There are also some of us that are working on innovating new, foundational technologies that will allow for distributed social interactions across the Web and offer truly user-centric identity control. For instance, instead of the limitations and non-user-centric aspect of OpenID, there is a group of us working at offering a truly user-centric identity protocol called WebID.

The Not-so Fine Line

You might think there’s a fine line between calling the Web a space filled with private social clubs and a Social space itself. You might think that it is not a big deal to call the current Web social. But for Social Web Architects, such as myself, the differences and distinctions are large, not small.

Social Web Architects are fighting for the rights of individuals to own and control their data, to have powerful yet easy to use identity and privacy tools, to freely and easily carry on conversations throughout the Web—not just within the walled sanctums of a few snooty nightclubs. We are building technologies that will link data and allow for the serendipitous discovery of new connections with other datasets and with fellow human beings—no matter where on the Web those connections and people may lay.

The Social Web is the metaspace actualization of a user-centric controlled, globally-connected conversation space across the Web. In essence, the mission of Social Web Architects is to bring the Web’s vision to fruition.

For a vision of the Web’s evolutionary epochs, and humanity’s race toward a Social Web, see my HyperWeb article.

Fortunately, the Web is constantly evolving. What it is experiencing now are the natural growing pains of an adolescent platform. Many of the current social-media nightclubs will eventually give way to a more open, user-centric ecosystem. I believe that they will have little choice as humanity inexorably races toward a truly Social Web.

Outside Resources

For two additional (one differing) perspectives on this issue, see Dave Winer’s, What I mean by “the open web” and and Stowe Boyd’s, Messiness At Scale.

My Related Articles About the Social Web

1. It’s Time for Blogging to Evolve
2. Flowing Your Identity Through the Social Web
3. My five-part series, Web 3.0: Powering Startups to Become Smartups
4. Apple’s Ping Versus the Social Web
5. How the Death of Net Neutrality Effects You
6. Goodbye Google Old Friend: It’s time for the Open-Source Internet
7. Thinking Outside the Privacy Box
8. Regaining Control of Privacy and Identity: It’s up to Each Individual

The issue in summary is that the big telecos are aiming to rate limit packet traffic across the entire wireless spectrum. That means that no matter what kind of data you send (text or media based), there could very well be a toll. Those that pay the highest access fees will see their data travel at the maximum throughput rates. Those who can’t pay as much, will in effect have their data throttled.

As I state at the beginning of a previous article on this issue:

If you design websites, run a small web-based business, make money from blogging, or are launching a startup, the level playing field of the Internet is about to get very bumpy. If you think that mobile-based services are the future and are catering to the wireless crowd, then be prepared for a game-changing shift.

There is a potentially game-changing new variable being considered that will skew the Internet’s competitive landscape. Currently, content creators pay fees to host their data, maybe even overage fees if bandwidth limits are exceeded in a given month. But once the data leaves the confines of their Web server, it travels across the Internet’s backbone infrastructure at the same rate as all other traffic.

The Google-Verizon proposal would allow an altogether new fee to be charged for wireless throughput—an access fee, a toll placed on data after it leaves your hosting firm’s building, or your company-owned server farm. This means that content providers–bloggers, ecommerce sites, social networks, you name it–will all be assessed wireless transmission fees. The higher the fee paid, the faster their data will be allowed to travel.

Why is this an issue? Because healthy competition requires a level playing field. Without net neutrality across the Internet’s entire infrastructure, users looking to join new niche social networks or who frequent boutique ecommerce sites may very well bypass those sites that appear to run very slowly on their wireless devices. They may instead move toward those sites that have a fast wireless response time.

It is not realistic to think that an unfunded startup, a new BuddyPress-based site, or a small blog-based ecommerce site would be able to afford paying the same fees as big companies. That would mean that their data would not travel as fast across the wireless infrastructure.

How many Web surfers want to waste their time waiting for what appears to be a slow server response? In fact, it may not be the server at all. Instead, it could be the speed limit placed on the data packets after they leave the Web server.

Think of it this way. When a WordPress Multisite install runs on a heavily-trafficked shared server, it can be painfully slow to use. Site owners who have configured their network this way often report that their members are complaining about how slow the site is to use, that new user registration is down as a result of the poor load times. The solution often suggested is to enable caching and upgrade to a VPN or to a dedicated server.

But guess what. That solution will not help if wireless packet traffic is rate limited. You could have the biggest server farm in the world with the fastest processors, maxed out memory, efficiently cached and compressed data, and best switches. But if you are not willing, or able, to pay the fees required to let your data travel unencumbered across the wireless infrastructure, then your users may have the same experience as if your site was on a shared host. Your users will not care why your site runs slowly. They may jump ship and spend their time on those sites that run at the speeds they have become accustomed to before net neutrality went out the window.

It is true that the total, theoretical wireless capacity is not nearly as high as that of the current wired-based infrastructure. But let’s remember that the wireless spectrum is not privately owned. It is leased from the public. There must be realistic limits placed on what private corporations can do with public assets. Allowing telecos to leverage their leases in such a way that condones economic inequality does not seem like a move in the public’s best interest.

Finally, we must remember that the wireless carriers already charge for data access. They just do it on the receiving end via subscriber fees and limits put on total bandwidth usage per month. What they want to do now is charge an additional toll to the content creators. So they’ll get paid by both parties, they’ll charge a toll on both ends of the wireless highway.

If it Costs Users, it Could Cost You

Guess to whom these costs will be passed? Why do you think that Facebook, eBay, and Amazon have all recently communicated their disapproval with Google, Verizon, and AT&T on this issue? Although these three behemoths could all afford to pay the highest access fees that the telecos may charge, they know that these costs would have to be passed back to their customers. They also realize that it sets a dangerous precedent—that of assigning data packet priority based on transmission fees paid.

If you don’t think that this issue might negatively impact your business, think again. Although this is currently a potential threat, it is a serious threat nonetheless. If the very people who create the content, consult for the content creators, and run the small ecommerce sites do not speak up, then the FCC and elected officials may not take as much interest in this issue as they should.

So, if you make your living as a blogger, by catering to the blogging community, or working for a social media design or marketing company, it’s time that you stir the pot and write your own post, contact your elected officials, or band together with some of your colleagues to shine light on this important issue. It does not matter if you are not based in the United States. This issue may affect your bottom line where ever you live.

Related Articles

Google-Verizon Joint Statement Presages End to Net Neutrality

Goodbye Google Old Friend: It’s time for the Open-Source Internet

Updates

December 21, 2010: Today the FCC voted on net neutrality regulation. The results do not bode well. See, Why everyone hates new net neutrality rules—even NN supporters.

November 4, 2010: With the U.S. midterm elections finally over, the possibilities for protecting net neutrality seem even worse. Read this CNNMoney article, Final nail in coffin for Net neutrality?

November 29, 2010: In a related development, Comcast is striking a blow against net neutrality for the wired Internet, requiring Level 3 Communications–a major fiber-based backbone provider–to pay them a recurring fee to transmit high-bandwidth content to Comcast’s customers.

November 30, 2010: Tell the FCC what you think by standing up for net neutrality. Sign the petition to stop Comcast from blocking Netflix IP traffic.

Today, Google and Verizon issued a joint statement on their net neutrality compromise and proposal. In a previous article, I discussed net neutrality, the rumored Google deal, and the need for an open-source Internet.

In their joint policy statement, Google and Verizon outline seven key elements as they call them. In their second element, they clearly state that they are for net neutrality as it pertains to the wired Internet (referred to as wireline). But pay particular attention to the fifth and sixth elements. This is where the issue of overall net neutrality comes into question.

In their fifth element, they make room for the possibility of “additional, differentiated online services” as long as they are “distinguishable from traditional broadband Internet access services and are not designed to circumvent the rules.” In other words, since no one can predict the amazing “new” products and services that will come into existence as the Internet evolves, they want to make allowances for the future possibility of a new class of access service that is different from the really-old “traditional broadband Internet access services.”

What does this mean in simple language? It means that new, unforeseen online access services could in essence offer priority throughput for a price. It means for the right price, that these so called “additional, differentiated online services” could charge premiums to have packets travel faster down their pipelines.

Finally, look at the sixth element in their joint proposal. Google and Verizon are unequivocally asserting that there is a difference between the wired and wireless Internet. They clearly are stating that net neutrality should not apply to the wireless Internet.

This is absurd as there is just one Internet. The access method does not the Internet make. It is called Internet access, after all. Should we now differentiate between the flavors of Internet access. How about twisted-pair access is different than fiber access, that twisted-pair access is clearly traditional but fiber is new and non-traditional. Fiber would then fall under the fifth element’s jurisdiction. This would allow Verizon, for instance, to charge to rate limit the packet traffic traveling across their FiOS fiber network. Perhaps this is what they intend as it can be argued that fiber is not wire and that fiber is not (yet) a “traditional” access method.

Thanks to Google, who used to be very clear that net neutrality applied across the entire Internet with no exceptions, this issue has become even murkier and true net neutrality more unlikely. Under Google’s and Verizon’s vision, the Internet will no longer be a single, nebulous, all-encompassing entity. There will be many Internets, each defined by how data is transmitted.

The promise of net neutrality and net equality will depend upon which Internet you surf. In fact, the Google-Verizon deal may put the issue of net neutrality to rest once and for all. Net neutrality will be remembered as something way back in the days of the traditional wired broadband Internet. The days when there was just one Internet.

This is an ominous portent, a clearly disturbing sign that a few of the most powerful players want to renovate the Internet landscape, turning it into a tollway instead of a freeway. Whereas access to the freeway has rarely been free, once your data hit the freeway, they had the same travel rights as any other data packet. But that may not be true going forward.

Unfortunately, if this proposal becomes a reality, the Internet that once spawned dorm-room disruptive startups, the Internet that spurred unfettered innovation, the Internet that offered a level playing field to all participants no matter the size of their bankroll, may very well be a thing of the past.

As I said in my previous article on this issue:

This could very well result in many small players–individual bloggers, Web-based startups, small traditional brick-and-mortar companies with online stores–from being kicked out of the game. There would be no realistic way in which small entities with equally-small or non-existent budgets, could compete for access with a well-funded major company.

Professional bloggers, small web-based businesses, open source projects, and the people who make their living providing services to these entities (web designers, theme builders, plugin developers, e-commerce and SEO consultants) could very well see their business evaporate as the cost to compete for equal data access with their well-heeled corporate counterparts would be prohibitive. Venture capitalists and angel investors could see their investments in startups suffer as more and more of the runway would be required to gain acceptable data throughput.

The Internet is quickly evolving into a mobile-preferred space. Many startups, bloggers, and web-based businesses are scrambling to make their services wireless friendly, or are creating wireless-only based services. If wireless Internet traffic becomes exempt from net neutrality laws and the Intertube’s big gatekeepers are allowed to rate limit throughput, then focusing on the wireless-access side of their business could very well be a big mistake. Without big pockets, there is no realistic way that these small players can compete for equal access.

So, if you care about your Internet rights and the freedom for your data to travel at the same rate as all other data, then speak up. Write your elected officials, blog about this issue, create websites to organize against the Google-Verizon pact, and get ready to fight the oncoming war against net neutrality. Either we stand our ground and fight for data equality on the Internet or risk that our businesses, innovation, and freedoms get sucked into the maelstrom.

Related Articles

Google-Verizon Joint Statement Presages End to Net Neutrality

Goodbye Google Old Friend: It’s time for the Open-Source Internet

UPDATES:

August 11, 2010: The New York Times published an article discussing the reactions of Facebook, eBay, and Amazon to the Google-Verizon deal to end net neutrality.

August 13, 2010: AT&T published its views on this issue on their Public Policy Blog. Read their post, Wireless is Different. Their stance is disappointing but not a surprise.

August 14, 2010: A group of protesters rallied outside the Googleplex, showing their support for net neutrality and dismay at Google’s partnership with Verizon.

The Argument for Net Neutrality

Net neutrality in a nutshell is the unfettered, equal access to the information highway. It means that whether you are an individual hosting a video podcast out of a small room in your apartment, or you are a large, traditional media player, you can expect to have the same opportunities. As long as you can pay for Internet access, your content–when traveling across the Internet backbone–will be treated the same as anyone else’s content.

What the monopolistic phone and cable companies want to do is rate limit the packet traffic traveling across their sections of the intertubes, providing fee-based preferential data transmittal. This in effect would result in many of the small, independent, upstart media companies from being able to compete on an equal footing with the larger, wealthy, more ensconced media behemoths. In essence, the phone and cable companies would decide what content was worthy to travel at the fastest rates. Those who can afford to pay the most will get the best service.

This could very well result in many small players–individual bloggers, Web-based startups, small traditional brick-and-mortar companies with online stores–from being kicked out of the game. There would be no realistic way in which small entities with equally-small or non-existent budgets, could compete for access with a well-funded major company. Those who had the most money would control what travelled across the Internet. The stark reality of this scenario is that it could very well be that most Web surfers and Web shoppers would not want to visit a site whose data trickles in compared to a large site whose data is received at blazingly-fast speeds.

It is important to realize that this is not an issue of a site running on an underpowered server, being hosted on an overcrowded shared server, or having exceeded any bandwidth limits on its hosting account. This is an entirely different issue. It is all about what happens once your data packets leave your ISP. Currently, they travel as fast as anyone else’s packets. But if Verizon (and now maybe Google) et al have their way, some packets will travel faster than others.

This could spell doom for the Internet’s healthy growth. In a strange, reverse chronological twist of history, the information-age of enlightenment could spiral down into the misinformation-dark ages. Although there is much misinformation and disinformation spread across the Web-based Internet today, small players, independent voices, and whistle blowers all have an equal platform from which to counter propaganda. But if a few large players in essence decide what gets broadcast across the intertubes by sheer virtue of their economic muscle, then the truth will be in constant jeopardy—not to mention just plain ole economic competition.

Although Google has championed the cause of net neutrality, in the past sometimes painting phone and cable companies as evil, these recent reports may presage the sad demise of a once-glorious friend and partner to the Internet. We should no longer view Google as the Internet’s big brother, the company that we can count on to guide us, protect us, and help us grow. Instead, we must watch out for it becoming the Internet’s Big Brother, a company that does whatever it wants to control, to monitor, and to profit over its minions.

It is an unfortunate, probably inevitable, reality that to remain competitive and provide a sufficient growth rate so that its stockholders remain happy with its performance, Google may have to turn to the dark side at some point. Could that time be approaching?

Even if this story turns out to be blown out of proportion and Google remains the Internet’s loyal friend, is it wise to continue to trust and rely upon a few large companies to act in the best interest of the Web’s netizens?

Enter the Open-Source Internet

The open-source software movement is responsible for many of the Web-based Internet’s glowing gems. There are numerous open-source tools from programming languages, to server software, to database engines, to content management systems that have been instrumental in building the Web-based Internet. These low-cost or no-cost tools have allowed individuals to hack together paradigm-changing services from the comfort of their small rooms. These tools have been equalizing forces in many once-competitively lopsided business markets.

So why can’t the spirit, energies, and values of the open-source software movement be harnessed to create an open-source Internet? The open-source Internet would be a technological landscape where the whims of a few market players or the malevolence of rogue governments could not alter the premise of the game. At the core of the open-source Internet would be the belief in net neutrality, net equality, and freedom.

The open-source Internet would be a system where all of its parts are governed by open-source principles. There are already a few key parts in place: the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a not-for-profit corporation charged with the management and oversight of the Domain Name System; the availability of numerous open-source software products, many that are currently used by Internet Service Providers; a cadre of willing and able people waiting for the opportunity to bring a vision like this to fruition. (Note: see update section below for recent concerns with ICANN)

A big issue would be gaining control over sufficient bandwidth in the various trunk lines of the Internet’s backbone. There currently is quite a lot of dark fiber (unused ultra-high capacity fiber cable) sitting idle. Level 3 is one of the largest owners of dark fiber in the world. Perhaps a non-profit consortium could be formed to negotiate a deal. The next big hurdle would then be the myriad hardware components and requisite buildings to house the equipment. Once again, this is not an insurmountable task, it is just a monumental task requiring great foresight, tons of effort, and initially some really deep pockets.

The biggest issue, and the final hurdle, could very well be the show stopper—providing Internet access to users. This is of course where the AT&T’s, Verizon’s, and Comcast’s of the world have a decided monopoly. It is why the issue of net non-neutrality is even possible. Even if a consortium is formed and successfully negotiates access and control over a piece of the Internet’s backbone, the final road into users’ homes and businesses will be controlled by the select few communication companies. They are the de facto gatekeepers to the Internet. They are the final obstacle to creating an open-source Internet.

And this brings us full circle to the start of this article. As the gatekeepers between our computers and the Internet, the Big Brother telecoms effectively have us between a rack and a hard drive. Although it is conceivable to open source most of the Internet’s parts, the last mile is tightly guarded by the telecoms. They spend billions of dollars in legal and lobbying activities to maintain their grasp on the Internet’s cul-de-sacs, the all-important connections with endusers.

The cost of open-sourcing the last mile would almost be astronomical. Ironically, this is the one aspect of this vision where Google could actually play the major role. At one point, Google (and perhaps Apple) was vying for purchasing the rights to a large block of the newly-released wireless spectrum that was going to be auctioned off by the government. It was thought that they might possibly offer WiFi or WiMax Internet access to endusers, putting the issue of net neutrality to rest once and for all. With these new reports about Google’s possible deal making with Verizon, you have to wonder if their do-no-evil mantra has been mothballed.

It’s important to state that this is not an anti-capitalism stance. It is an anti-monopoly stance focused on keeping the Internet’s playing field level. It is a pro-startup stance aimed at ensuring competitiveness at all levels on the Internet.

Even if an open-source Internet might not be a realistic possibility, we still have a chance to fight back. If you believe in net neutrality, please contact your elected Federal officials and let them know why this issue is so important. Our nation’s economic future and the sovereignty of truth are at risk if the interweb’s landscape is skewed to favor the few.

What do you think?

How can the open-source software community bring the vision of an open-source Internet to fruition? Are there viable business models that can help build-out and sustain an open-source Internet? Is net neutrality something that the world’s governments should ensure? Will you continue to support Google by using their products if the reports of their collusion with Verizon on this issue pan out to be true?

Note: Here’s another story detailing the finer points of the potential Google-Verizon deal.

Updates

August 9, 2010: Read my follow-up article on the Google-Verizon joint policy statement.

November 30, 2010: With recent concerns surrounding the ability of governments to seize control of domain names, the question of the desirability of ICANN to play a role in an open source Internet has been called into question. Read, P2P-Based DNS Seeks to Counter ICANN and Thwart Domain Seizures.

January 2011: With the recent uprisings in the Middle East, people have started to think about ways in which access to the Internet could be ensured to all people, thus removing the leverage that governments have to terminate communication to the outside world.

March 6, 2011: CBS has an interview with Eben Molgen on what he is calling the Freedom Box. This cheap device addresses some of the issues of control of the last mile that I discuss above. But as wireless signals travel very short distances, the Freedom Box can only create localized networks. The Freedom Box is basically a wireless router (which many people already own). It is not clear what additional functionality this device would add on top of a basic router, but presumably it would make creating mesh networks very simple, so simple that a user without much computer experience could do it with ease. Although Freedom Boxes would allow people to instantly create a massive network, they do not ensure access to an Internet connection which would allow communication with the outside world. Hooking up the last mile with the outside world would still be an issue.

My Related Articles

The HyperWeb: it’s All About Connections

The Web is Not (yet) Social

How the Death of Net Neutrality Effects You

Google-Verizon Joint Statement Presages End to Net Neutrality

Personal freedoms, control over one’s privacy, and the ability to manage one’s identity on the Web have never been in more jeopardy. With Facebook’s continued war on personal privacy, the day when a user no longer has any rights to control their own data is closer at hand. The question is, How should society respond?

Of course, Facebook–or any other corporation–is free to offer services and manage their user base in anyway that benefits their stakeholders—as long as they do not break the laws under which they are obligated to operate. Individuals have the freedom to decide whether or not they agree with Facebook’s policies, in particular as they pertain to privacy and the use of their personal data. They can choose not to use Facebook, Twitter, or any other Social Web network.

I have no issue with corporations making a profit, I am a businessman myself. My argument is that society should not feel comfortable when a few individuals (or in this case a single person) make broad, sweeping decisions about how an individual’s data is managed.

Society should not be complacent or apathetic when a large corporation like Facebook continues to assail personal privacy on one front while purporting to be the de facto provider of Web-based identity on the other. Free societies should strive toward assisting individuals to gain control over their personal data.

Currently, there are inherent barriers to providing users with an easy-to-use mechanism that grants fine, granular control over personal data on the Internet and Web. Most users have their personal data strewn throughout myriad, disparate data silos, across different closed social networks. This makes it difficult to create tools that offer users an efficient and effective way to manage their data, to manage their on-line identity.

Some of the initiatives that open a user’s data up to other applications and networks–the Open Stack, for instance–begin to address this issue. But, as long as users’ personal data remains effectively siloed in government and corporate databases, this vision will not be obtainable.

As the Web matures and new technologies such as Semantic Web protocols and tools become available, solutions to the proverbial Privacy 2.0 and Identity 2.0 debate are possible. Whether corporate adoption rates of those solutions will be sufficient to make them viable is unclear. This is were the wishes and desires of a free society come into play. If there is a sufficient cry to adopt new identity-management protocols, then perhaps we can effect change.

In my article, “A Flock of Twitters: Decentralized Semantic Microblogging”, I offer one such path to a user-driven, user-centric identity management and privacy solution. It does not rely on corporate adoption but instead puts the power back in the hands of individuals.

But there are other solutions that offer great business opportunities to companies that truly listen to users’ concerns over the usurpation of their personal privacy and identity. In the coming decade, those companies that build new interfaces and provide new services that facilitate user-centric identity and privacy management will find their visions rewarded. There is plenty of room for both open source and proprietary solutions in this space.

Whereas Facebook has shown great acumen at growing their small business into a global behemoth, it has lost sight as to the roots of its success—their users’ trust. If the Web’s citizens take a stand and demand that their personal privacy and identity remain their domain, and not the domain of corporations or governments, then companies like Facebook could very well end up being a relic of a Wild-west Web, a bygone time where anything and everything was acceptable in the name of profit.

It is up to society, to the Web’s citizens, to decide how the issue of privacy and identity will turn out. If only a few voice their opinions, if only a few are cognizant of this crisis and its negative ramifications, then Facebook and other corporations will decide how privacy and identity are managed.

If you think privacy and identity are too important to let the few decide how they are managed, then it’s time for you to act. Write about it on your blog, tweet about it, retweet my article, do whatever it takes to get those who trust you in your various social networks to take note, to listen, to understand, and to ultimately act.

UPDATE: April 20, 2011: With Facebook being credited with facilitating the Middle East uprisings and their desires to move in to China, it appears that they may be bowing to pressure to curb free speech in certain parts of the world.

UPDATE: May 8, 2010: Jeff Jarvis published an interesting article on this topic. See Confusing *a* public with *the* public.

Here’s why I ask. Over the past several years, whenever Facebook has made a change to its privacy policies, it has caused great uproar—not only with civil liberties advocates (as you would expect), but also with Facebook’s user base.

The recent brute-force change to the privacy settings of all 350 million of its users is just the latest in a series of moves that exposes more of Facebook’s users’ information.

According to the above linked article, here’s what Zuckerberg said about the recent change:

Doing a privacy change for 350 million users is not the kind of thing that a lot of companies would do. But we viewed that as a really important thing, to always keep a beginner’s mind and what would we do if we were starting the company now and we decided that these would be the social norms now and we just went for it.

That last statement, “we decided that these would be the social norms,” is the telling truth. It is not that lack of privacy has become a social norm. It is that Facebook believes that it should be.

It is as if Facebook issued a decree to its global citizens. Privacy is no longer something you should request. Privacy is not in the best interests of our society (as in Facebook’s “society” or corporate mission).

Exposing more of its users’ data to the world is, of course, attractive to Facebook’s business alliances. It offers a number of new opportunities for profit. To a company rumored to be heading toward an IPO in 2010, new revenue streams and growing profits are a good thing.

But open data and opening up of personal data are two different issues. What pieces of your data should be open? Where do we draw the line? In general, as long as they are not breaking any laws, I believe it should be up to individuals to decide which pieces of their personal data are made public.

In a free society, we should strive toward letting individuals, not governments or corporations, be in control of their personal data. Collectively society should “own” the data with individuals given control over a subset of their personal data.

There are compelling reasons why opening up personal data to the world is desirable. But it should not be up to governments or corporations to make that choice on behalf of their citizens and users. In a free society, it should be the citizens who drive the push toward more open data, not a few elite power players who force the issue.

What do you think? Is Facebook engineering the expectation of lack of privacy? Are they forcing the issue and making it become a social norm by brute force? Is this truly what their users want? What rights should individuals have to control their personal data?

UPDATE February 24, 2010: See my article A Flock of Twitters: Decentralized Semantic Microblogging to see how users can take control of their own on-line communication streams.

UPDATE March 19, 2010: As this year’s keynote speaker at South by SouthWest Interactive (SXSWi), Danah Boyd presented a very thought-provoking keynote presentation on privacy in social media: Making Sense of Privacy and Publicity.

UPDATE May 2, 2010: The Electronic Frontier Foundation recently published a very illuminating article on this topic, Facebook’s Eroding Privacy Policy: A Timeline.

UPDATE May 8, 2010: An interesting graphic depicting what I call the devolution of Facebook privacy.